mcp_engram_export

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format and filter parameter but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or safe. The 'export' verb implies read-only, but a direct statement would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and use cases. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, filtering capability, and intended scenarios. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'filtered subset' but does not add specific parameter details beyond the schema's own description of min_crs. It provides no extra semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (export), the resource (the manifold or filtered subset), and the output format (portable JSON array). It also lists specific use cases (backup, migration, cross-machine sync), distinguishing it from sibling tools like import.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'for backup, migration, or cross-machine sync'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list includes import and other related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.